Us Supreme Court Court December 1907 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Water, Light and Gas Co. Vs. Hutchinson
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-23-1907
Water, Light & Gas Co. v. Hutchinson - 207 U.S. 385 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Water, Light & Gas Co. v. Hutchinson, 207 U.S. 385 (1907) Water, Light & Gas Company v. Hutchinson Nos. 53, 54 Argued October 24, 1907 Decided December 23, 1907 207 U.S. 385 APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus A grant conferring a privilege is not necessarily a grant making that privilege exclusive. Grants by the state to municipal corporations, like grants to private corporations, are to be strictly construed, and the power to grant an exclusive privilege must be expressly given, or, if inferred from other powers, must be indispensable, and not merely convenient, to them. Citizens' Street Railway v. Detroit, 171 U. S. 48 . The Kansas statutes for the government of cities, as construed by the highest court of that state, do not confer on cities of the second class the power to grant exclusive franchises, and, in the absence of such power exp...
The Hamilton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-23-1907
The Hamilton - 207 U.S. 398 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court The Hamilton, 207 U.S. 398 (1907) The Hamilton No. 71 Argued October 24, 1907 Decided December 23, 1907 207 U.S. 398 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Until Congress acts on the subject, a state may legislate in regard to the duties and liabilities of its citizens and corporations while on the high seas and not within the territory of any other sovereign. Where a fund is being distributed in a proceeding to limit the liability of the owners of a vessel, all claims to which the admiralty does not deny existence must be recognized, whether admiralty liens or not. The statute of Delaware giving damages for death caused by tort is a valid exercise of the legislative power of the state, and extends to the case of a citizen of that state wrongfully killed while on the high seas in a vessel Page 207 U. S. 399 belonging to a Delaware corporation by the negligence of another vessel als...
Werckmeister Vs. American Tobacco Co.
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-16-1907
Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co. - 207 U.S. 375 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Co., 207 U.S. 375 (1907) Werckmeister v. American Tobacco Company No. 29 Argued October 30, 1907 Decided December 16, 1907 207 U.S. 375 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Section 4965, Rev.Stat., as amended by the Act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 965, is penal in nature and cannot be extended by construction; it contemplates a single action for the recovery of plates and copies infringing a copyright, and for the money penalty for the copies found. Such an action is wholly statutory, and all the remedies given by the statutes must be exhausted therein, and after the owner of the copyright has recovered judgment for possession of the plates and copies, he cannot maintain a separate action to recover the money penalty. There is no requirement in 4965, Rev.Stat., that the United States shall be a party to the action provided for the ...
Flemister Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-16-1907
Flemister v. United States - 207 U.S. 372 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Flemister v. United States, 207 U.S. 372 (1907) Flemister v. United States No. 70 Submitted December 5, 1907 Decided December 16, 1907 207 U.S. 372 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Syllabus Trono v. United States, 199 U. S. 521 , followed as to the power of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands to increase the sentence of one convicted in the court of first instance and appealing to the Supreme Court. One is not placed in second jeopardy within the meaning of the Philippine bill of rights by being tried for an assault on an officer because he has already been convicted for a breach of the peace and assault upon another Page 207 U. S. 373 person at the same time and place, and where it appears that the assault on the officer was not relied on or proved as part of the offense for which he was first convicted. The facts are stated in the opinion. MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered th...
Vandalia Railroad Co. Vs. Indiana
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-16-1907
Vandalia Railroad Co. v. Indiana - 207 U.S. 359 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Vandalia Railroad Co. v. Indiana, 207 U.S. 359 (1907) Vandalia Railroad Co. v. Indiana No. 26 Argued October 18, 1907 Decided December 16, 1907 207 U.S. 359 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF INDIANA Syllabus The construction of a pleading, the meaning to be given to its various allegations, the determination of the validity of a contract in reference to real estate within the state, and whether the form of remedy sought is proper are, as a general rule, local questions. If the judgment of the state court is based on a decision placed upon a sufficient nonfederal ground, this Court has no jurisdiction to review it. While this Court is not concluded by the judgment of the state court, and must determine for itself whether a federal question is really involved, and may take jurisdiction if the state court has in an unreasonable manner avoided the federal issue, the writ of error will be dismis...
Paraiso Vs. United States
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-16-1907
Paraiso v. United States - 207 U.S. 368 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Paraiso v. United States, 207 U.S. 368 (1907) Paraiso v. United States No. 23 Submitted December 2, 1907 Decided December 16, 1907 207 U.S. 368 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS Syllabus Where a case is brought up from the circuit court on the ground that the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States is involved, the record must show that the question was raised for the consideration of the court below, and, under 10 of the Act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 695, this rule applies to write of error to review judgments of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. A complaint, sufficiently clear to the mind of a person of rudimentary intelligence as to what it charges the defendant with, informs the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and a conviction Page 207 U. S. 369 thereunder is not in that respect without due process of law under t...
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. Vs. Wharton
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-09-1907
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton - 207 U.S. 328 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U.S. 328 (1907) Atlantic Coast Line Railroad company v. Wharton No. 36 Argued November 5, 1907 Decided December 9, 1907 207 U.S. 328 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Syllabus An exercise of state authority, whether made directly or through the instrumentality of a commission, which directly regulates interstate commerce is repugnant to the commerce clause of the federal Constitution, and so held as to the stopping of interstate trains at stations within the state already adequately supplied with transportation facilities. Whether an order stopping interstate trains at specified stations is a direct regulation of interstate commerce depends on the local facilities at those stations, and while the sufficiency of such facilities is not, in itself, a federal question, it may be considered by this Court for the purpose of determining...
Earle Vs. Myers
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-02-1907
Earle v. Myers - 207 U.S. 244 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Earle v. Myers, 207 U.S. 244 (1907) Earle v. Myers No. 12, 388 Argued October 15, 1907 Decided December 2, 1907 207 U.S. 244 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In an accounting for attorneys' fees for collection of claims against the government, this Court followed the general rule of affirming a finding of fact made and confirmed by both the courts below unless the same is clearly erroneous, and held that certain services were of the character generally designated as lobbying services and could not be allowed. Where an administrator of an attorney performs services and incurs expenses in completing the business in which his intestate and another attorney were interested, he should be allowed therefor, and those services and expenses as well as those rendered and incurred by the intestate can be settled in one suit where the account has been treated by both parties as one account. W...
Shoener Vs. Pennsylvania
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-02-1907
Shoener v. Pennsylvania - 207 U.S. 188 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Shoener v. Pennsylvania, 207 U.S. 188 (1907) Shoener v. Pennsylvania No. 161 Argued October 28, 1907 Decided December 2, 1907 207 U.S. 188 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus One is not put in jeopardy if the indictment under which he is tried is so radically defective that it would not support a judgment of conviction, and a judgment thereon would be arrested on motion. Where the defense is that the accused is put in jeopardy for the same offense by his trial under a former indictment, if it appears from the record of that trial that the accused had not then or previously committed, and could not possibly have.committed, any such crime as the one charged, and therefore that the court was without jurisdiction to have rendered any valid judgment against him, the accused is not, by such trial, put in second jeopardy for the offense specified in the last or new indictment. Where a c...
Arkansas Southern R. Co. Vs. German National Bank
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided on: Dec-02-1907
Arkansas Southern R. Co. v. German National Bank - 207 U.S. 270 (1907) U.S. Supreme Court Arkansas Southern R. Co. v. German National Bank, 207 U.S. 270 (1907) Arkansas Southern Railroad Company v. German National Bank No. 56 Argued November 14, 15, 1907 Decided December 2, 1907 207 U.S. 270 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus Unless the decision upon a federal question was necessary to the judgment of the state court, or in fact made the ground of it, the writ of error must be dismissed. Even when an erroneous decision upon a federal question is made a ground of the judgment of a state court, if the judgment is also supported upon another ground adequate, in itself, and containing no federal question, the writ of error must be dismissed. This Court ordinarily will not inquire whether the decision upon matter not subject to its revision was right or wrong. Although the state court may refer to and uphold the statute, the constitutionality of...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »